Why do digital prints cost more?

[scottamy404]

I'm getting my first set of digital prints done today and am a little curious as to why they cost more than film. Normally, using my Wolf membership, I can get double prints of a 24 exposure roll (48 prints) for 9.99. This price also includes the developing of the negatives.

To get 48 prints at 33 cents per print will be 15.84 US dollars. I'm curious as to why the cost nearly 50% more for the same amount of prints when it seems like there is less involved in the actual printing.

 

[Richard Wait]

I'm curious as to why the cost nearly 50% more for the same amount
of prints when it seems like there is less involved in the actual
printing.

and when they use the same machine and paper...

--
Regards - Richard
http://www.wait-photography.com



(This is the voice of the Mysterons, we know that you can hear us Earthmen)

 

[KenEis]

I get 4x6 prints at WalMart for $0.24 each or 48 for $11.52.

1. That's hardly more money since you buy prints that you know you want. With film you get 48 prints some of which are probably duds, out of focus, poorly exposed etc.

2. There are still 10 time more places to get film done. So as the number goes up the competition will improve the cost factor. In the mean time the number of places you can get film processed will begin to go down.

3. The new machinery used to develope the digital stuff is expensive and needs to be paid for. (By the way the print paper printing machine is the same one for film and digital in the Walmarts.) Fuji Frontier system.

I'm getting my first set of digital prints done today and am a
little curious as to why they cost more than film. Normally, using
my Wolf membership, I can get double prints of a 24 exposure roll
(48 prints) for 9.99. This price also includes the developing of
the negatives.

To get 48 prints at 33 cents per print will be 15.84 US dollars.
I'm curious as to why the cost nearly 50% more for the same amount
of prints when it seems like there is less involved in the actual
printing.

--

Ken Eis - D100 and S45 Nikon 18-35, 28-105, 24-120VR, 70-300, 80-400VR, 500mm and 60mm macro

 

[phototakeouter]

I'm getting my first set of digital prints done today and am a
little curious as to why they cost more than film. Normally, using
my Wolf membership, I can get double prints of a 24 exposure roll
(48 prints) for 9.99. This price also includes the developing of
the negatives.

I'm guessing it's part due to the extra infrastructure they need. Computers, monitors, software, card readers, computer literate/trained staff, etc, etc.

regards.

 

[scottamy404]

I'm getting my first set of digital prints done today and am a
little curious as to why they cost more than film. Normally, using
my Wolf membership, I can get double prints of a 24 exposure roll
(48 prints) for 9.99. This price also includes the developing of
the negatives.

I'm guessing it's part due to the extra infrastructure they need.
Computers, monitors, software, card readers, computer
literate/trained staff, etc, etc.

regards.

Maybe that's it. I understand that there are other places to get digital prints done cheaper and that you only pay for the ones you want but print for print digital prints are more expensive at Wolf than tradiitional film. They print the prints using the same machine but you do have to load your files onto that computer in the store.

Maybe i should just ask Wolf.

 

[TJ66308]

The cost of a print from digital should be the same as a print when developing a roll of film. However, at Costco in Toronto a 4x6 digital print costs 24 cents and a film print at time of processing is about 8.1 cents. (If you bring in a film negative to get a reprint it will cost the same as printing a digital picture.) So 8.1 cents for a film print vs 24 cents from a digital file sounds like a rip-off. If you go the 5x7 size the film print at prcessing time is 12.5 cents and a 5x7 from a digital file is about 88 cents.....an even greater rip-off!!!
Ted

I'm getting my first set of digital prints done today and am a
little curious as to why they cost more than film. Normally, using
my Wolf membership, I can get double prints of a 24 exposure roll
(48 prints) for 9.99. This price also includes the developing of
the negatives.

To get 48 prints at 33 cents per print will be 15.84 US dollars.
I'm curious as to why the cost nearly 50% more for the same amount
of prints when it seems like there is less involved in the actual
printing.

--
Ken Eis - D100 and S45 Nikon 18-35, 28-105, 24-120VR, 70-300,
80-400VR, 500mm and 60mm macro

 

[Theresa K]

Here's the site, I ordered prints but haven't gotten them yet.

http://www.winkflash.com

--
Theresa
The Digital Junkie! (w/an Oly C-5060 & FL-40)

 

[Rob214601]

Being an employee of Ritz/Wolf I'll try and answer your question as best I can:

It's tough to compare developing film and digital prints. It's true that film requires more steps, but digital requires much more equipment.

Not only does Ritz have to get Fuji Adpc readers (those things you put your media into), but the entire printer must be upgraded. Many of the older Ritz cameras were using Fuji SFA equipment. To change over from the SFA printer to the new Frontiers is probably around $200k per store (i haven’t checked the price of the 370 in a while, it might be more)

The major difference with film and digital is with film, it's all or nothing.

If you shoot some pics at your house on a 24exp roll and only need say 4 of those shots made, it's still going to cost you quite a bit. (let's go the cheap route)

There is a $4.50 charge for developing and $1.00 for the index. You pick the ones you want and send them back to be made, that'll cost about $2.(Assuming you want just 1 of each)

Total cost: about $7.50
Total time: Between 1 and 2 hours (depending on the stores work load)

Let's do the same thing now with digital:

You shot some pics at your house (for fun, let’s say 100). You walk into ritz and pull your pictures up on the machine. You find the 4 you like and make 1 of each. Cost for a non-member is $.39.

Total cost: about $1.60
Total time: 20 mintues to an hour (pending work load)

The idea behind digital photography is that you choose what you want to have printed. That you don’t have to get 24 or 48 prints.

Everyday I have customers who come to my counter with their CF cards and say “just give me 2 of everything”
“Sir, that’s going to be over 200 pictures”
“yeah I know, I’ll look them over later”

This is not what Digital photography was meant for.

The idea with digital photography is you print only the pictures you want, when you want.

I’m sorry that it cost you more for 48 prints off digital. But consider this,

If they’re really the 48 pictures that you want to keep (frame or put in an album) consider how many rolls you’d have to shoot to get 48 prints that are keepers. Even a good photographer would use at least 3 or 4 rolls.

That’s $30 or $40 from Ritz.

If it makes you feel better ritz has noticed, and digital prints are dropping in price as of this Friday.

Non Member prints are going to be $.34 each ( I think)
Members get prints for $.29 if they do 25 or more.

In addition members can also add a web upload of the prints for only $.99 and a CD for only $1.99

Normal price is $4.99 for web upload and $7.99 for the cd

 

[Raymond Bradlau]

Rob thanks for the answer, always nice to here about a price drop

Being an employee of Ritz you may be able to help me out with a question if its not to much trouble

I get great 8x10 from Ritz but am having trouble getting the color correct (yellows look more gold/orange) how would I go about fixing this? could I get some kind of profile for the Frontiers?

thanks

Being an employee of Ritz/Wolf I'll try and answer your question as
best I can:

It's tough to compare developing film and digital prints. It's true
that film requires more steps, but digital requires much more
equipment.

Not only does Ritz have to get Fuji Adpc readers (those things you
put your media into), but the entire printer must be upgraded. Many
of the older Ritz cameras were using Fuji SFA equipment. To change
over from the SFA printer to the new Frontiers is probably around
$200k per store (i haven’t checked the price of the 370 in a while,
it might be more)

The major difference with film and digital is with film, it's all
or nothing.

If you shoot some pics at your house on a 24exp roll and only need
say 4 of those shots made, it's still going to cost you quite a
bit. (let's go the cheap route)

There is a $4.50 charge for developing and $1.00 for the index. You
pick the ones you want and send them back to be made, that'll cost
about $2.(Assuming you want just 1 of each)

Total cost: about $7.50
Total time: Between 1 and 2 hours (depending on the stores work load)

Let's do the same thing now with digital:

You shot some pics at your house (for fun, let’s say 100). You walk
into ritz and pull your pictures up on the machine. You find the 4
you like and make 1 of each. Cost for a non-member is $.39.

Total cost: about $1.60
Total time: 20 mintues to an hour (pending work load)

The idea behind digital photography is that you choose what you
want to have printed. That you don’t have to get 24 or 48 prints.

Everyday I have customers who come to my counter with their CF
cards and say “just give me 2 of everything”
“Sir, that’s going to be over 200 pictures”
“yeah I know, I’ll look them over later”

This is not what Digital photography was meant for.

The idea with digital photography is you print only the pictures
you want, when you want.

I’m sorry that it cost you more for 48 prints off digital. But
consider this,
If they’re really the 48 pictures that you want to keep (frame or
put in an album) consider how many rolls you’d have to shoot to get
48 prints that are keepers. Even a good photographer would use at
least 3 or 4 rolls.

That’s $30 or $40 from Ritz.

If it makes you feel better ritz has noticed, and digital prints
are dropping in price as of this Friday.

Non Member prints are going to be $.34 each ( I think)
Members get prints for $.29 if they do 25 or more.

In addition members can also add a web upload of the prints for
only $.99 and a CD for only $1.99

Normal price is $4.99 for web upload and $7.99 for the cd

--
http://www.pbase.com/ray645

 

[RogM]

I'm getting my first set of digital prints done today and am a
little curious as to why they cost more than film. Normally, using
my Wolf membership, I can get double prints of a 24 exposure roll
(48 prints) for 9.99. This price also includes the developing of
the negatives.

To get 48 prints at 33 cents per print will be 15.84 US dollars.
I'm curious as to why the cost nearly 50% more for the same amount
of prints when it seems like there is less involved in the actual
printing.

 

[Craig Power]

Why do we pay more?
... simple, supply and demand.

I don't buy the rationalization that just because we can choose which photos to get printed, we should be willing to pay more, because in the long run, it's still less expensive than printing a roll of film.

I want to pay the same as the person getting their film prints, if it's used on the same machines, and all else being equal.

With digital imaging being a relatively 'new' consumer product, it appears that the first generation of adopters are willing to pay more for the 'efficiency' of only having to print what they want.

As long as consumers are willing to pay more for digital prints, photo labs will charge us more.

I recall talking to a camera-store operator about two years ago and he said that Fuji is making it's biggest profits from paper, not chemicals or hardware. (Not sure if this is correct, but it seems very plausible.)

Hopefully, with the rapid growth of digicam sales, we'll soon see more competition in the printing of digital images.

Here's hoping that some entrepreneur can come up with a print system to add more competition to the fray.

 

[Rob214601]

Assuming that your trying to edit your picture on the kiosk at the store:

Most of Photo Kiosk are pre-set to correct the image in 2 or 3 stop incraments. This is mostly because the average customer can't tell the difference between a half stop or 1 stop of color or density (my personal guess). If the machine is making your photo too yellow, give your media directly to one of the associates and ask them to do it for you mannually. The frontier controls give the technition about 50 degrees laterally in every color channel.

If the monitor is close enough, or they are'nt busy you should be able to watch the technition adjust your photo. Just ask if it's ok.

It's not something we do all the time, but as a customer you deserve to get what you want.

If you don't make corrections but for some reason it's still comming out odd:

Ask the technition if his/her "image intelligence" is turned on. On the frontiers the computer can read your files Exif information and make color corrections. There is a software issue with some of the machines (very very minor) and it can add a yellow tint to some photos or darken them too much.

If they have no idea what your talking about, just ask them to adjust the photo by hand.

I've worked with Ritz for a few years and have even had the chance to put a frontier together. It's a pretty impressive machine considering what we used to work with.

--
Natural light or bust.

 

[scottamy404]

Being an employee of Ritz/Wolf I'll try and answer your question as
best I can:

It's tough to compare developing film and digital prints. It's true
that film requires more steps, but digital requires much more
equipment.

Not only does Ritz have to get Fuji Adpc readers (those things you
put your media into), but the entire printer must be upgraded. Many
of the older Ritz cameras were using Fuji SFA equipment. To change
over from the SFA printer to the new Frontiers is probably around
$200k per store (i haven’t checked the price of the 370 in a while,
it might be more)

The major difference with film and digital is with film, it's all
or nothing.

If you shoot some pics at your house on a 24exp roll and only need
say 4 of those shots made, it's still going to cost you quite a
bit. (let's go the cheap route)

There is a $4.50 charge for developing and $1.00 for the index. You
pick the ones you want and send them back to be made, that'll cost
about $2.(Assuming you want just 1 of each)

Total cost: about $7.50
Total time: Between 1 and 2 hours (depending on the stores work load)

Let's do the same thing now with digital:

You shot some pics at your house (for fun, let’s say 100). You walk
into ritz and pull your pictures up on the machine. You find the 4
you like and make 1 of each. Cost for a non-member is $.39.

Total cost: about $1.60
Total time: 20 mintues to an hour (pending work load)

The idea behind digital photography is that you choose what you
want to have printed. That you don’t have to get 24 or 48 prints.

Everyday I have customers who come to my counter with their CF
cards and say “just give me 2 of everything”
“Sir, that’s going to be over 200 pictures”
“yeah I know, I’ll look them over later”

This is not what Digital photography was meant for.

The idea with digital photography is you print only the pictures
you want, when you want.

I’m sorry that it cost you more for 48 prints off digital. But
consider this,
If they’re really the 48 pictures that you want to keep (frame or
put in an album) consider how many rolls you’d have to shoot to get
48 prints that are keepers. Even a good photographer would use at
least 3 or 4 rolls.

That’s $30 or $40 from Ritz.

If it makes you feel better ritz has noticed, and digital prints
are dropping in price as of this Friday.

Non Member prints are going to be $.34 each ( I think)
Members get prints for $.29 if they do 25 or more.

In addition members can also add a web upload of the prints for
only $.99 and a CD for only $1.99

Normal price is $4.99 for web upload and $7.99 for the cd

Thanks for the reply. I didn't mean for my original post to sound like a complaint if it came across that way. I was just curious as to the, on the surface, higher price of getting a digital print vs. film print. In the end, digital will save me money over all since I won't be getting rolls of 24 developed like you said.

I got my prints back today and they look great.

 

[Rob214601]

Why do we pay more?
... simple, supply and demand.

You are very correct sir. I'm sure that every company can charge less for digiprints, but why should they? They only seem to drop prices to compete. CVS dropped to $.29 and now Ritz is too.

I don't buy the rationalization that just because we can choose
which photos to get printed, we should be willing to pay more,
because in the long run, it's still less expensive than printing a
roll of film.

The long run is quite far i'm afriad. Sure using digital means we don't need a $70,000 negative processor, but we now need a $200,000 printer that can accept digital imputs and files. Not to mention all the support hard ware and kiosk's for the consumer. So yes, in the long run it is cheaper, but it's a "long run."

I want to pay the same as the person getting their film prints, if
it's used on the same machines, and all else being equal.

Again the film could have been printed on the old SFA machines. It's because of YOU that we've had to get new machines (Small joke).

In a sense it's fair. I can walk into Ritz with my CD-R of 48 pics that i've taken over the last 3 months and run them off. These are prints that i either intent to frame or to put in an album or hand out. The other 300 photos I shot don't need to be printed, because they look like junk.

or

I walk in with 2 rolls of film that i've shot in the last 3 months. I have to pay for everything to be developed, and most of them look like jiunk. Out of the 48 photos I shot, I like only 15 of them. The others are either blurry, or bad composition, or poor lighting, or irrelivant photos.

you get the idea.

The concept that we know as printing is changing. Instead of printing everything, we now have the ability to review our photos before we print them.

With digital imaging being a relatively 'new' consumer product, it
appears that the first generation of adopters are willing to pay
more for the 'efficiency' of only having to print what they want.

The idea of printing a roll of film is so you can see the photo. With digital you can see the photo withing seconds of it being taken or later on your computer or monitor. Having a print of something you dont "want" is redundant.

The logic from the retail stand point is that you should'nt print what you dont' want, thus you don't waste your money.

As long as consumers are willing to pay more for digital prints,
photo labs will charge us more.

Like with technologie, prices are always dropping. When I first started working for Ritz, Digiprints were $.59 each. now they're $.29

I recall talking to a camera-store operator about two years ago and
he said that Fuji is making it's biggest profits from paper, not
chemicals or hardware. (Not sure if this is correct, but it seems
very plausible.)

Hopefully, with the rapid growth of digicam sales, we'll soon see
more competition in the printing of digital images.

Walgreens
CVS
Ritz
RiteAide
Costco
Price Club
Kodak (snicker)
Walmart

I think the competition has arrived

Here's hoping that some entrepreneur can come up with a print
system to add more competition to the fray.

Wo ho small buisness! I'm all for small buisness, used to run one.
--
Natural light or bust.

 

[Rob214601]

Glad to hear things worked out. I did'nt think it sounded like a complaint. That's what i dislike about the internet. you can never tell the emotional attachment to a message, and thats something that we as a people need to understand the real meaning of our message.

Robert

-Speech major (definately not an engllish major. ha!)
--
Natural light or bust.

 

[scottamy404]

Glad to hear things worked out. I did'nt think it sounded like a
complaint. That's what i dislike about the internet. you can never
tell the emotional attachment to a message, and thats something
that we as a people need to understand the real meaning of our
message.

Robert

-Speech major (definately not an engllish major. ha!)
--
Natural light or bust.

Yes, that is one thing I don't like about the interenet. Digital prints, for the time, are slightly more expensive but are coming down in price. I hadn't really thought about all the new costs associated with printing digital and so your response pretty much answers my question as to why digital is more expensive. The pick and choose side of digital is nice, but for now if I want to get 100 digital prints and 100 film prints....the film will be cheaper. Unless, of course, I pic 100 individual frames of films from 100 24 exposure rolls of film to be printed. Then, I think, the reprint price is very close to that of digital.

 

[ike2010]

Digital photography is a very hot market right now. All of those VP's and marketing directors with their MBA's aren't stupid. If people are willing to pay the higher prices, the companies are willing to take their money. We are finally starting to see some less expensive prices, but for now, the money is there to be made.

Why do we pay more?
... simple, supply and demand.

I don't buy the rationalization that just because we can choose
which photos to get printed, we should be willing to pay more,
because in the long run, it's still less expensive than printing a
roll of film.

I want to pay the same as the person getting their film prints, if
it's used on the same machines, and all else being equal.

With digital imaging being a relatively 'new' consumer product, it
appears that the first generation of adopters are willing to pay
more for the 'efficiency' of only having to print what they want.

As long as consumers are willing to pay more for digital prints,
photo labs will charge us more.

I recall talking to a camera-store operator about two years ago and
he said that Fuji is making it's biggest profits from paper, not
chemicals or hardware. (Not sure if this is correct, but it seems
very plausible.)

Hopefully, with the rapid growth of digicam sales, we'll soon see
more competition in the printing of digital images.

Here's hoping that some entrepreneur can come up with a print
system to add more competition to the fray.

 

[Vernon D Rainwater]

I'm getting my first set of digital prints done today and am a
little curious as to why they cost more than film. Normally, using
my Wolf membership, I can get double prints of a 24 exposure roll
(48 prints) for 9.99. This price also includes the developing of
the negatives.

To get 48 prints at 33 cents per print will be 15.84 US dollars.
I'm curious as to why the cost nearly 50% more for the same amount
of prints when it seems like there is less involved in the actual
printing.

Just a comment. I very much enjoyed reading ALL posts in this thread.

Very thoughtful and well presented as well as very polite and enjoyable to read..

A compliment to Rob -- your Company should be VERY proud of you and the manner in which you conduct yourself as reflected in your replies.
--
Vernon...
http://www.pbase.com/vrain

 

[Raymond Bradlau]

Thanks for the reply but I should have better stated my question....

I edit at home in Photoshop and drop a disk of with Ritz, Id like to have as much as possible done already so I would not need to rely on the techs to "fix" anything

Would it be possible calibraited a color profile just for the Ritz/Frontier printer? I know some people have more than 1 printer at home and a different color profile for each, could I do something like this with Ritz as my second printer?

More than likely I am not explaning this as I should, but if you could help in anyway, thanks
Ray

Assuming that your trying to edit your picture on the kiosk at the
store:

Most of Photo Kiosk are pre-set to correct the image in 2 or 3 stop
incraments. This is mostly because the average customer can't tell
the difference between a half stop or 1 stop of color or density
(my personal guess). If the machine is making your photo too
yellow, give your media directly to one of the associates and ask
them to do it for you mannually. The frontier controls give the
technition about 50 degrees laterally in every color channel.

If the monitor is close enough, or they are'nt busy you should be
able to watch the technition adjust your photo. Just ask if it's ok.

It's not something we do all the time, but as a customer you
deserve to get what you want.

If you don't make corrections but for some reason it's still
comming out odd:

Ask the technition if his/her "image intelligence" is turned on. On
the frontiers the computer can read your files Exif information and
make color corrections. There is a software issue with some of the
machines (very very minor) and it can add a yellow tint to some
photos or darken them too much.

If they have no idea what your talking about, just ask them to
adjust the photo by hand.

I've worked with Ritz for a few years and have even had the chance
to put a frontier together. It's a pretty impressive machine
considering what we used to work with.

--
Natural light or bust.

--
http://www.pbase.com/ray645

 

[GeorgeH]

Because Ritz/Wolf know people are willing to pay the extra $$$.

Try Costco/Sam's club, digital prints are the same prince as film prints.

I'm getting my first set of digital prints done today and am a
little curious as to why they cost more than film. Normally, using
my Wolf membership, I can get double prints of a 24 exposure roll
(48 prints) for 9.99. This price also includes the developing of
the negatives.

To get 48 prints at 33 cents per print will be 15.84 US dollars.
I'm curious as to why the cost nearly 50% more for the same amount
of prints when it seems like there is less involved in the actual
printing.